trechriron

After reading these responses, I'm not convinced this is useful. I imagine just having the table for easy reference on a "player's tables" sheet would be just as easy to lookup momentarily. I would not be so concerned about skills over 100. First, high skills can counter high penalties, and the special success / critical ranges are based on final Skill Rank not original. Second, high combat skills will likely be split for multiple attacks, again negating the high skill calculations. At your tables, does having a quick reference of skill calculations make things faster? Or are your players mathing in their heads? 🙂

Not strictly doubles. Only ODD doubles...

I think I read something similar to this in an earlier thread here (or somewhere). Just wanted to get opinions on the idea. Instead of calculating a % of skill or referencing a range, you base results on certain numbers rolled. So Odds Above, so Odds Below Rolling a 01 = Critical Success Rolling odd doubles under skill = Critical Success Rolling odd doubles over skill = Critical Failure. I believe this is the same odds as using the critical ranges? Or pretty close... On the Fives & Tens Rolling a 5 or 0 on the ones die under skill = Special Success. i.e 05, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. I also believe this works out to the same odds as 1/5. Eliminates math and looking up ranges on a table (for those who don't do quick math in their head). Thoughts?

I'm building a Google Sheet for my BRUGE game. Happy to share it with you if you think it could kickstart your efforts. 😄 Just DM me your Google-compatible email and I'll share a copy.

I love SAVE! I'm using it as the organization in my Everyday Heroes game on SATs. I don't think EXACT conversions are necessary, they are similar. The adventures and setting material make great resources IMHO.

I will pay cash monies for this and continued development. 😄

It is strange however that we are including the license in the name of the game. There are SRDs out there where they refer to OGC (Open Gaming Content) derived from the OGL (Open Gaming License) -- but most don't include a license in the name. We don't refer to Pathfinder 2e as PF2E OGL, or D&D as D&D OGL. We do define open content derived from the 5.1 SRD, even then it's not referred to as 5.1 SRD OGL. I also have never seen a game title like Cool Game CC. 😄 I like the acronym introduced here previously. BRP:UGE = Basic Role Playing: Universal Game Engine. The fact that it's released under an open license is no different than the other games released under an open license. BRP:BGB or just BGB (Big Gold Book) was the previous edition. BRP:UGE is the cleaned up new hotness. Then we don't have to legitimize anything dealing with Orc Burps. Do we really want people thinking Orc Burps when picking up the game? 😛 😮 🤓

I like this! (This is the way)

Ditto this and for the follow. 🤓

Can @Jason D clarify point 3 re: split attacks and parries? I am seeing the Parry skill in the BGB and the new BRP:UGE. Was the intent to remove Parry and have parries attempted under the weapon skill? I'm also seeing the "split skills over 100%" mentioned in BGB: Combat in Different Genres and BRP:UGE: Variant Combat Rules. What was changed or removed? They seem the same to me.

I'm going to push ahead with these as both a) my house rules and b) a suggestion for a future update to BRP:UGE; 😄 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OFnySmefnf8U96a0ilqLH9eGwFi6WWaI_QPJ-xj0hds/edit?usp=sharing

I made one here --> Likely will make one in Google Sheets with extra tabs so people can customize. I'm also making a Character Sheet in Google Sheets with a bunch of options. I will share for feedback once I get closer.

A supplement detailing a bunch of playable species including this info would be awesome...

I agree with all the sentiments. 1. The number of errors in the initial PDF are high. Extra spaces, missing page references, word choices. However, I assumed two things. 1) This was put together quickly to jump on the OGLpocalypse and the ORC train and 2) Chaosium WAS crowdsourcing the edits for thoroughness, expediency, and cost. Frankly, I'm good with that. I'm excited about BRP being open source and being able to publish with it. I'm willing to pitch in to help keep that a reality. There are several small publishers who do this very thing and expressly admit to it. 2. Publishers should pay editors to edit. However, at even .02 per word that gets UGLY expensive. Free copies is a cool reward for editing and likely WAY more cost effective. But let's be honest -- a free copy hardly covers the bill. A 90k word book is $1,800 at .02 a word. The art in this edition is magnificent! I would be surprised if they paid less than $2,500 for it. There's like 10 full art pages for each version of the DE Vinci Man and I've seen those advertised for around $500 a piece. I believe the intent of the fans in this case is simply -- if I pitch in, and reduce costs, it inspires the publisher to keep supporting and investing in this cool thing. 3. The labor here hardly qualifies as exploitation. Misleading people to believe they are going to get paid or rewarded and then not actually doing it -- is exploitation. Quid Pro Quo (you want some water? Here, edit this document for me...) is exploitation. Asking for help is just being honest IMHO. 4. Bringing this up hardly qualifies of accusing Chaosium of bad faith. It's a good reminder that people working as creatives in a creative space deserve compensation. Even if it may not be as relevant here -- it's certainly relevant in the industry! Don't work for "exposure". Ask what you believe you are worth. Standing up for people comes from the heart. We should always applaud people who stand up.

I'm currently building a Google Sheets character sheet and I'm happy to add that to it. I already have an Equipment tab, so I just need to refine for Encumbrance and Fatigue rules.

The bolded items in the spoiler list above are the actual BRP skills. Each of the items listed under that are what I believe are the corresponding Weapon Class; as listed on page 169 (Heavy, Missile, Melee weapons) and page 180 (Artillery weapons). Based on my reading, any skill with (varies) after it requires specialization, essentially making them separate skills. It says in the weapon skills that specialization is based on Weapon Class. I made a few assumptions in the list above; Certain weapon classes belong natively to other skills besides weapon skills. See Brawling, Demolitions, and Throwing. Each weapon lists a skill in the skill column. These are the specialties required for that weapon based on Weapon Class. Artillery weapons only list Heavy Weapons (broad skill), Artillery (broad skill), and Demolitions (broad skill). This seems to be contrary to how other weapons listed specialties based on Weapon Class. I want to know; What assumptions are correct? Which ones are not? Are the Artillery listings incorrect? Is my list correct from the designer's point of view? Is this list what other players/GMs see as correct? I made some suggestions above that I believe would make this all clearer (IF my assumptions are somewhat accurate... :D)

That's not entirely accurate. SRDs were made as a convenience, but they were never required. In many cases, publishers made them to help define exactly what was open content. "Everything not in the SRD is Product Identity." It reduces a lot of questions about what is allowed or not.

I'm confused on the interrelationship between these two things and how to break down specialties for combat skills. Looking at the weapons tables, there is a skill listed for each that seems to correspond to a Weapon Class listed on pg. 169. However, artillery weapons (pg. 180) don't list the separate Weapon Classes and instead list the general skill. Is the intent that there should be a skill specialty that corresponds to each Weapon Class? Should artillery weapons have a Weapon Class listed? Is Flamethrower a Heavy Weapon? Seems like a good skill for it. I believe Launcher and Missile could go under Heavy Weapon as well? Suggestions: In the specialties section of each of these skills, list the available weapon classes in a sentence. Example for Firearms; Pistol, Revolver, Rifle, Shotgun, and Submachine Gun Fix the artillery weapons to list the weapon class instead of the generic skill. Change the skill column to WC = Weapon Class. Combine all Weapon Classes under that same heading to include artillery weapons. Here is what I've gathered are the Specialties = Weapon Class for each governing skill. Would love to have some input here on correctness. 😄 (Updated List based on some assumptions...)

BRP discusses how you can modify Base Chance based on the genre. Are there any suggested lists or modifications out there? I was thinking of adding this to my Google Sheet. Apparently my Spot needs improvement. It says there are suggestions in the genre section...

I'm am working on a Google Sheets character sheet for BRP. Are you supposed to modify the calculations for critical / special success after modifiers?

https://discord.gg/YVQ7x4GDz2

The ORC License discord server had a recent update that the law firm was reviewing the latest draft. I would say the first draft version will be available to the public SOON. Maybe even before BRP vORC comes out? :-)

That cover is sexy. This is great news!!

I had this long response to replace my offensive post. Then I thought "why?" Here are a few bullet points. I wouldn't touch this license with a bacon-wrapped 10 ft pole. Even if dipped in honey. Using the term "open" and making any inference that it is related to the OGL is insulting to the broader Open Content community. It's misleading and demonstrates a much stronger desire to exploit that community as a marketing gimmick vs. contribute to it. Might I suggest "BRP-Derived RPG License"? Clearer, makes more sense... maybe a tad more honest? Doesn't use the word "open"? This is NOT an open license. For the fans / publishers in the cheap seats - this. license. is. NOT. OPEN. This is the polar opposite of what OPEN is supposed to mean. I get "open" is right there in the name. But French Toast is not from France and that bouncer is not named "Tiny Tom" because he's actually... tiny. Based on the responses by Chaosium staff in this thread I've gleaned a few things; a) they don't trust their fans or the broader publishing community, b) they don't like us - at all, c) they have no concept of the esprit de corps of the Open Content movement, and d) they don't appear very self-aware of how an Open License is supposed to support the "parent" publisher. I was going to drop some knowledge in the thread and then thought - "who would heed it?" Of course, it's not too late to undo it. Maybe consult an OGL expert? Rethink the whole idea of how restricted-use licensing doesn't do anything to build your market or increase your bottom line? Nah. Forget I mentioned it. Have fun storming the castle!

I am not seeing a place to add or edit my profile image? Just comes up as a blank in the header... I tried hooking up Facebook, but it displays an error. It seems it is still in "development mode"? Until it's ready, you might want to disable the display of it or publish the app on your Facebook dev account. Thanks,